Zoe Kleinman: Why the AI industry is the real winner of the Musk-Altman trial

The trial that pitted Elon Musk against OpenAI and its CEO Sam Altman has come to a close, and the real winner is not just OpenAI, but the AI industry as a whole. Despite Musk essentially losing on a technicality, the verdict sends a clear signal that making lots of money from AI and competing fiercely with rivals is simply business as usual. The AI industry often tries to present a united front, especially when it comes to issues like safety, research, and inclusivity.

However, this trial served as a powerful reminder that none of the AI giants are charities, and they don't have to be. The cracks in the façade of industry collaboration for the sake of humanity have been exposed before, and this trial was no exception. The drama that played out in the Oakland, California courtroom over the past few weeks has helped lift the veil on the AI sector and the huge egos of the men at the heart of it, jostling for money and power.

The trial may have bought the industry more time, amid a chorus of concern that AI firms have been overvalued and the sector could be a bubble about to burst. Some speculated that OpenAI could not afford to lose, given that it has burned through huge volumes of investor cash and recently hired a chief revenue officer to help it raise its own money. Prior to the verdict, one economist predicted that OpenAI had a 50% chance of going bust by 2027.

Not having to pay billions of dollars to Musk in damages may help lengthen those odds. Musk himself is unlikely to be seriously wounded by the outcome, but he will undoubtedly continue to swing punches at OpenAI and attempt to embarrass it from his social network X. While Musk and Altman have been focused on each trying to prove themselves the worthiest custodians of AI in court, their rivals have raced ahead.

Anthropic has made headlines with claims that its latest model Claude Mythos could be dangerously good at hacking, while Google is embedding AI across its popular services at pace. The trial served as a reminder of how much the future of AI still depends on a remarkably small group of powerful tech figures and their personal rivalries, said Sarah Kreps, director of the Tech Policy Institute at Cornell University. The conclusion of the trial on a technicality leaves a lot of questions and debates unresolved, such as how highly capable AI systems are governed and who reaps their economic benefits.